-->
@Theweakeredge
What’s the or proposition?
Another one of my arguments for God's existence
Posts
Total:
105
-->
@Theweakeredge
So why then would you reject solipsism in regards to the nature of reality but not reject "solipsism " so to speak in regards to the nature of morality? Why should just accept the (unproven) axiom that reality is real and objective but reject any axiom or moral epistemology that allows for objective moral truths?
I still await an answer to my question. Is the proposition true or is its negation true ??
-->
@Soluminsanis
Because it isn't the same thing. Morality is definitionally of the mind, reality is definitionally... real.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Morality is definitionally of the mind
Are you ever going to support these assertions you make?
-->
@Tarik
already did that. I had an entire syllogism about it in fact.
-->
@Theweakeredge
As I have already defined - subjective in this context is referring to something which depends on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence, so subjective morality is morality that is dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence.
You used the word in the definition, interesting 🤔.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Still haven't answered my question
-->
@Tarik
Dictionaries are as dictionaries do.
-->
@Soluminsanis
What is the justification for premise one? seems really shaky to me.
-->
@zedvictor4
Even if that were true they don’t tell us that everything is the same.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
See #5
-->
@Soluminsanis
actually i did - you have a perponderance of evidence for the axiom of the universe - in contrast you have none for a "objective morality" furthermore morality is characteristically of the mind... that is how morlity works as a thing. And I already answered this; you simply want me to answer your false dichotomy - I don't answer fallacies.
-->
@Tarik
Yes. Because I was comparing a word and that same word with an adjective added on. Do you understand what an adjective is?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well in order to define the word with the adjective added on the words itself can’t be used.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"you simply want me to answer your false dichotomy - I don't answer fallacies."
The law of excluded middle states that a proposition is either true or false.
Calling a basic law of logic a fallacy when posed with a simple proposition your worldview cannot coherently answer tells me you are not discussing this in good faith anymore
Since, according to the laws of logic, my "dichotomy " is perfectly valid, I will ask you again, what is the truth value of this proposition?
"Torturing infants for fun is wrong, and ought not to be done. "
This proposition is:
A. True
B. False.
I await your selection.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Sum1hugme
Yes as sum1hugme pointed out, P1. might need some retooling.
-->
@Soluminsanis
"Torturing infants for fun is wrong, and ought not to be done. "This proposition is:A. TrueB. False.I await your selection.
Can you define torture? It seems pedantic, but some might think 'torturing' an infant withholding sugary juice drinks. Some disagree. Some think letting their infant cry at night is torture. Some disagree. THe term needs clarification.
If you're talking, for example, during the Inquisition, it wasn't viewed as 'wrong,' rather 'necessary.' Is it not wrong, then, because they weren't doing it 'for fun'?
And I don't think the "wrong" and "ought not be done" are necessarily connected nor are they interchangeable. If you lop either off, you're left with "wrong according to what definition" or "ought not be done," which doesn't connect to wrong in and of itself. We can say 'it's wrong according to how I view the world here in 2020, so I don't do it nor do I endorse it." It's also illegal. Which doesn't mean right, wrong, moral or immoral, it's just what society has decided we won't tolerate legally.
Why did, according to the bible, God torture his own son? Was that wrong? If God were indeed all powerful, why was this the only path to the end he wanted to achieve? Is it not wrong to brutally torture a man for something with which he had nothing to do (original sin), to pay the 'debt' of someone else (not forgive the debt instead)?
-->
@Tarik
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you define a symmetrical car as a symmetrical road vehicle with an engine, four wheels, and seats for a small number of people, then that definition is problematic as well because once again your using the word in the definition.
-->
@Soluminsanis
Wrong, again - It could be true that torturing infants is wrong, but you ought to do it, it could be the case that torturing infants is right but you ought to not do it. It depends on your ethical standards.
-->
@Tarik
No, its not - are you talking about the adjective? Because if I wanted to I could just define the adjective and the word; however, I've done both so many times with YOU specifically that I don't feel the need to so anymore, so I use a shorthand. Were you not paying attention the first 20 times I defined both?
-->
@Tarik
What you don't seem to comprehend is that morality is intrinsically a proposition - you can claim it is moral truth.... well then prove the truth.... but then its still a proposition. Morality, especially standards of it are propositions - until they can be proven objective then it is not objective, and seeing as the principles which make up morality are propositional... morality is definitionally propositional.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I accepted your definitions of both separately but once you’ve conflated the two that’s the issue here and no the conflating of the two you haven’t defined, I can give you my definition of objective morality if you like but something tells me you already know what that is.
What you don't seem to comprehend is that morality is intrinsically a proposition
What you don’t seem to comprehend is that statement alone is an assertion, even if I admitted that I can’t prove objective morality that doesn’t mean it’s subjective it could mean that neither of the two exists and nihilism is correct.
Morality is a group-think. Ethics is an individual decision. As a result, morality is objective. It is ethics that is subjective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Wrong, again - It could be true that torturing infants is wrong, but you ought to do it, it could be the case that torturing infants is right but you ought to not do it. It depends on your ethical standards."
Just so we're clear, you believe there exists a possible world where one has a moral obligation to torture infants for fun?
You also believe there is another possible world where torturing infants for fun is, in your words, "right"?
"It depends on your ethical standards "
And therein lies the problem with moral subjectivism.
Let's say my standard says there is no possible world where torturing infants for fun is morally acceptable.
Let's say another person's standard is that it is totally acceptable to torture infants for fun.
Which of those two standards is right?
-->
@Soluminsanis
Nazi loyalists supported the systematic murder of Jews. Doesn't that prove that morals are subjective?
Well, then again Hitler's troops had belt buckles that said "God is with us". So maybe morals are objective.
.
SOLUMINSANIS,
Since you are directly going against the inspired words of Jesus the Christ by not addressing my posts to you shown below, I feel that I should warn you that you are to defend the Bible 100 percent, do you understand? "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) Do you want to call Jesus a LIAR in not following the verse above?
Soluminsanis, the runaway from Jesus' inspired words as shown in the links above, remember pseudo-christian, this is a Religion Discussion Forum and is NOT a Religion RUNAWAY from discussion forum, get it? Huh? The comical thing is the fact that you "think" you are a Christian, but by running away from the Bible as shown you are no more a Christian than ethang5!
.
-->
@FLRW
How would it? If morals are subjective there's nothing objectively wrong with systematic racial murder
-->
@FLRW
.
FLRW,
YOUR HISTORICAL QUOTE RELATIVE TO THE BIBLE AND HITLER: "Well, then again Hitler's troops had belt buckles that said "God is with us".
Adolph Hitler was upset with the following passage, as if he needed another excuse to murder the Jews:
"For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
I am sure that I don't have to point out the irony of this passage above and where Jesus is a Jew (Hebrews 7:14) , King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37), and He came only for the Jews (Matthew 15:24), and non other, as the scriptures so state!
.